Transparency & Facilitating implementation & promoting compliance under the Paris Agreement 2017 ecbi Oxford Colloquium Dr. Achala Abeysinghe Achala.abeysinghe@iied.org

Enhanced transparency system Increases participation Builds trust Gauges progress Promotes accountability Encourages ambition Achieve individual and global goals

Common understanding on Transparency framework is a component of PA’s ‘ratcheting up’ mechanism Enhanced transparency system should be built upon collective experience Expected to informs GST as a source of input Linkages to other agenda items (e.g. NDC guidelines, accounting of finance, Article 6 mechanisms, compliance) Areas of divergences Operationalising flexibility Tracking progress of implementing and achieving NDCs Scope of information on climate change impacts and adaptation Transparency of support provided and needed/ received MPGs for TER and FMCP Key concerns Avoid undue burden on developing countries Flexibility should be operationalised in a way that allows the transparency framework to provide an accurate picture of global efforts. Flexibility does not mean that Parties can report less frequently and provide less quality information under the Paris Agreement than under the Convention (Para 92(e)). Timeline. What needs to be completed by 2018? How do we ensure linkages are addressed?

Reporting requirements Support needed and received (Art 13.10) Information Content Mandatory Reports Optional Reports Reports Related to climate change impacts and Adaptation (Art 13.8) NIR (Art 13.7a) NDC Tracking (Art 13.7b) Support Provided (Art 13.9) Responsibilities All Parties Developed country Parties Developing Country Parties All Interested Parties Support Provided (Art 13.9) other Parties providing support

Review process Reports FMCP TER All Parties shall All Parties shall   Reports FMCP TER All Parties shall undergo technical expert review of GHG inventory and information on progress towards NDCs All Parties shall undergo a multilateral, facilitative consideration of progress with respect to efforts under art.9 and its respective implementation and achievement of its nationally determined contribution Developed countries shall undergo technical expert review of information on support provided

Compared with the UNFCCC Paris Agreement Developed Countries Developing LDCs/ SIDS GHG inventories Every year Part of Nat Com and BUR Discretionary Every 2 years NatCom Every 4 years Information on support is mandatory Different guidelines Encouraged to do the same No new provisions. UNFCCC continues to apply? Biennial reports BRs Mandatory info on support BURs Every two years At least every 2 years All Parties Shall All Parties shall All Parties All Parties To address the timeline question ‘no less frequently than on a biannual basis’ but because developed countries submit their GHG inventories annually under current system and that decision 1/CP21 calls for countries to at least maintain the same frequency and quality in reporting in accordance with their respective obligations under the Convention, they will have to submit their GHG inventories every year By early 2017, 36 developing countries have submitted their biannual reports. Obviously there is much more to be done even to implement the current system and get the real experience of what this entail for developing countries (which were due by end of 2014). Although reporting requirements for developing countries are less stringent than those for developed countries, this suggests that developing countries are experiencing difficulties with aspects of reporting. This may be related, among others reasons, to a lack of financial resources, data, or established domestic reporting infrastructures (Ellis and Moarif, 2015). In other words, reporting challenges are associated with capacity constraints. All Parties All Parties

Compared with the UNFCCC Paris Agreement Developed Countries Developing LDCs/ SIDS Review of GHG inventories Review (in many steps) (initial check of facts, synthesis and assessment, individual review, assessment report) As part of technical review of BUR No special provisions yet Review of Nat Comms Review (desk reviews, in-country visits- exceptional cases), secretariat in-depth review. Compilation and Synthesis reports Technical expert review/ analysis of Biennial reports IAR Reviews by TER ICA Technical analysis of BUR Can be reviewed as a group All parties Flexibility for countries in light of their capacity Multilateral review/ consideration As part of IAR process (questions and answers, assessment, reports) Different guidelines As part of ICA process (facilitative sharing of views) The existing arrangements have also shown that technical reviews can place a significant burden on Parties, expert reviewers and the UNFCCC Secretariat, and that it requires significant financial and human resources. According to one estimate, the average amount of working days for carrying out one Party’s review is 153 days if it involves an in-country review, or 83 days if it involves a centralised review (Pulles, 2016). This has been problematic, as the number of technical experts available for carrying out reviews is still limited. Specifically, there is a greater need for experts from developing countries. The jury on the outcomes and usefulness of state-to-state multilateral review processes established under the Cancún Agreements is still out. The multilateral assessments thus far involved many Party-to-Party questions, for instance related to individual Parties’ use of market-based mechanisms and the progress made in achieving climate pledges (Kong, 2015). The learning and experience sharing function of the multilateral assessment could be increasingly important as climate governance moves toward an evolved transparency regime under the Paris Agreement. Beyond providing transparency of developed countries’ progress, the multilateral assessment proved an opportunity to share experiences and shed light not only on what developed countries achieved, but how they reached their respective outcomes. Developed and developing countries asked questions to the reporting countries to gain further clarity on their policies and results achieved through those policies. Nearly every country highlighted the role of carbon pricing, renewable energy and energy efficiency. The process has been said to create greater clout at the domestic level for ministries involved in implementation; contribute to policy exchange and learning; clarify technical issues in reporting; and offer space for asking political questions (Deprez et al., 2015; Briner and Moarif, 2016). The Facilitative Sharing of Views offers a similar forum for information sharing. However, both processes are hampered by limited participation by states. This reflects resource limitations: for smaller countries, it is not always possible to engage in detail with the lengthy reports and their reviews. Through the technical reviews, the ICA also aims to contribute toward building non-Annex I countries capacity for reporting, which will help improve the quality their BURs over time. The technical reviews are both a technical exercise to facilitate transparency and a capacity-building effort to help countries construct levels against which they can measure their reductions in emissions from deforestation and degradation.

Options for in-build flexibility Systematically throughout the MPGs, e.g. scope, level and detail of reporting; frequency of reporting and scope of review Through the use of reporting tiers Determined nationally based on developing countries’ capacities Based on the legal nature of the reporting requirements, e.g. “shalls” and “shoulds” Be linked to support needed and provided While LDCs and SIDS may report at their discretion, it may be useful for reports to be submitted and reviewed at least once every 5-years to: get a clearer picture of global action ensure adequate input into the review and global stocktake Provide an understanding of redundancies/gaps in support needs Significant support should be given to help LDCs, SIDS etc achieve this.

Information for tracking progress of implementing and achieving NDCs Challenges: Diverse NDCs making formulating common MPG on information requirement for tracking is complicated Guidance on features of NDCs still under consideration Some NDCs have substances other than greenhouse gases, which lack agreed reporting methods Some commitments are conditional on financial support, which creates challenges when tracking progress Capturing information on Art. 6 is also difficult with Art. 6 negotiations are still progressing. Suggestions Indicators and methodologies to track progress Ensure guidance on NDCs is aligned with tracking progress Not new. Current BR from developed countries require them to provide information on Progress in achieving quantified economy-wide targets, including mitigation actions and effects, including estimates from use of market mechanisms and land use, land-use change and forestry activities

Support provided and received How do we move discussions forward? SBSTA discussion on accounting is enough? Other climate finance related issues relevant for transparency discussion definitions for clarity on support provided/received (definition of climate finance, SCF work?) The issue of ‘new and additional’ support provided and support mobilised. Are they the same? How support provided and support received interrelate? what happens if data about how much support was received and about how much was provided do not match? Currently unanswered. (suggestion on simply informaning the focal points) Lessons from current biennial assessment reporting by developed country parties does provide basis for elements that need to be included in the MPG. Common tabular formats have helped improve reporting Some kind of matching system

Facilitating Implementation and Promoting Compliance

Common understanding Negotiations on compliance have not progresses as much as other areas such as transparency. General hesitation to progress Need to avoid being adversarial, punitive Any kind of sanction or enforcement action are outside the scope of the Committee’s mandate

Areas of divergence/uncertainty Scope and Functions Triggers ( commencement/initiation of Committee activities) National capabilities and circumstances Measures and outputs Linkages

Scope All provisions of the Agreement, without restricting scope from the outset? Covering mandatory provisions and non-mandatory provisions Only individual obligations under Articles 4, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13 (shall provisions)? Some common or collective obligations (obligations shared among certain Parties)? collective aspirations (Art 2.1) or collective assessment (Art 14) are not subject to the Art 15 Mechanism Relevant provisions of decisions related to modalities, procedures and guidelines (MPGs)) Provisions relating to domestic action, contributions made by Parties through their NDCs? Not appropriate under Art 15 due to the nationally-determined character of NDCs and sovereignty over their content?